Vladimir A. Pavlov wrote:
>On Monday 23 April 2007 09:32, prdcomp wrote:
>
>
>>I think I made something wrong when building the 6.2 lfs system; I'm
>>getting a mtab failure while booting. It is saying:
>>
>>"mount: can't open /etc/mtab for writing: Permission denied"
>>
>>It does boot; and I ge
On 4/25/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I always get the same results as I don't install /usr/local either.
>
> In fact, why does LFS? It isn't used, why add it?
>
> I asked years ago why LFS adds /usr/local/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf and
> never got an answer. I think we should ditch
--- Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/25/07 19:10 CST:
>
> > The obvious question that everyone will have is: what happens if you
> > simply run the commands that are in the book, instead of deviating?
> >
> > This would be a good indication of t
--- Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Murphy wrote these words on 04/25/07 18:56 CST:
>
> > The book asks you to run:
> >grep -B2 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log
> >
> > But I have an extra line in that list. Running the command (with -B3
> > instead) produces:
>
> The obvious qu
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/25/07 19:22 CST:
> Whoops. No, that's correct. When I was testing out the command, the
> first output is what I had. But that's only because I usually don't
> install the /usr/local hierarchy until it's needed. Checking again
> now, your output is correct and
On 4/25/07, David Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm building from the current LFS development snapshot (SVN-20070420). I'm
> in section 6.12, installing GCC-4.1.2. The build, tests, and install went
> ok, and all the sanity checks match the book except for one:
>
> The book asks you to run:
>
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/25/07 19:10 CST:
> The obvious question that everyone will have is: what happens if you
> simply run the commands that are in the book, instead of deviating?
>
> This would be a good indication of the overall health of your build,
> *THEN* you would ask abou
David Murphy wrote these words on 04/25/07 18:56 CST:
> The book asks you to run:
>grep -B2 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log
>
> But I have an extra line in that list. Running the command (with -B3
> instead) produces:
The obvious question that everyone will have is: what happens if you
simply run
I'm building from the current LFS development snapshot (SVN-20070420). I'm
in section 6.12, installing GCC-4.1.2. The build, tests, and install went
ok, and all the sanity checks match the book except for one:
The book asks you to run:
grep -B2 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log
For which the output s
On 4/25/07, Sandip Devnath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you suggest to have script to intall packages. What about the configuration
> for the tool like http.conf for apache, registering apache with initrc etc
> etc.
That's the hard part. The cheap solution I've used is to create
default conf
>
> On 4/25/07, Sandip Devnath gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We tried following
> > . Tried to check-in the entire LFS root to CVS. However CVS doesn't work
> > properly with special files like symbol link, device file etc etc.
>
> Regardless of what setup you use, you'll probably have to certain
Quoting Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 4/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Quoting Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > More important is the last thing, make sure the linker exists, and has
> > > the same name as the one that is compiled into the binary (rea
On 4/25/07, Sandip Devnath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We tried following
> . Tried to check-in the entire LFS root to CVS. However CVS doesn't work
> properly with special files like symbol link, device file etc etc.
Regardless of what setup you use, you'll probably have to certain
special f
Hi,
We are a group of people across different geographical location. We are
developing our LFS environment. So far we did following.
. Developed a base LFS environment and distributed the root directory among
us.
. Everyone intalled the new LFS on their host machine and started adding new
to
On 4/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > More important is the last thing, make sure the linker exists, and has
> > the same name as the one that is compiled into the binary (readelf -l
> > /bin/mount)
> > Also, the dynamic linker nee
Quoting Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 4/25/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's very odd, mount does sit in /bin and it has the same permissions as
> all the
> > > other files in that directory (such as l
Did you use any compiler flags of your own? If so, try without any, and see
if the error is reproducable.
Michael
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 4/25/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It's very odd, mount does sit in /bin and it has the same permissions as
> > all the
> > other files in that directory (such as ls which works perfectly). to make
> > sure i
> >
18 matches
Mail list logo
